Category / Research Ethics

Are you thinking of undertaking clinical research, and wish to branch out into the NHS? If you are, then you will need Good Clinical Practice (GCP) training.

GCP training is the international ethical, scientific and practical standard to which all clinical research is conducted. Compliance with GCP provides public assurance that the rights, safety and well-being of research participants are protected and that research data are reliable.

GCP courses are free to book onto, and can either be done online or face-to-face. Luckily, the next face-to-face session is scheduled to take place at the Lansdowne Campus, on Tuesday 15th May, 08:45am – 16:30pm, room to be confirmed.

If you would like any more information about the training and its content, or wish to book on, please contact researchethics@bournemouth.ac.uk

Tuesday saw the annual NHS Research Ethics Committee (REC) members training day in London. The learning outcomes of the day were:

To provide overview of the pilot work being undertaken in preparation for EU Clinical Trials Regulation

To introduce the REWARD Alliance and,

To consider how ethics committess can encourage researchers to engage more fully with the scientific literature both before and after studies are conducted

The morning focussed on updates on ethics regulatory procedures, the EU (see link below for slides) and changes in the Data Protection Act (but not the law of confidentiality) that have implications beyond healthcare research. There is also movement for a Public Involvement in Ethical Review (PIER) service, as well as adopting ‘e-consent’ for participation in health research.

The afternoon focussed on the REWARD Alliance and how ethics committees (and researchers) can help reduce waste in research. This group was established to promote a series of articles on research published in early 2014 in The Lancet.

As a researcher and ethical reviewer, the day was insightful, interesting and relevant. Knowledge of the REWARD Alliance, particularly how researchers should diligently plan and prepare projects with clear pathways to dissemination. Although publishing demands differ between academia and industry (including pharmaceutical companies), all research should be designed fom the outset with clear outputs to communicate the findings.

Academic have been warned for a decade about predatory Open Access publishers (van Teijlingen 2014). These are commercial organisations charging academics a publication fee on submission of their manuscripts with a promise to publish their work quickly online. The problem is twofold: first, these commercial organisations don’t offer proper peer-review and editorial quality assurance; and secondly, academic are being tricked into believing the journal is a legitimate scientific publication. The second author receives on average six to eight invitations a week to publish in this kind of predatory journals – see below for examples. The first author, who despite having not worked in an academic institution for over three years, still receives such invitations to publish in ‘Journal X’.

Predatory conferences

A similar phenomenon to predatory journals is the predatory conference (Moital 2014; Nobes 2017; Grove 2017). These are pretend academic conferences of questionable value, established first and foremost to make money, not for the greater good of the academic discipline.

Both authors have received bogus and legitimate invitations to attend conferences. A predicament with such an invitation, which 99% of time arrives by email, is that it is not easy to distinguish between fake and real offers. For example, the first author recently received an offer (at short notice), to attend a conference in Miami in November 2017 (see below). This was on the back of an editorial he had published couple of months earlier. For a career researcher going from contract to contract, the appeal of being invited to present a keynote at a conference can be flattering, far less an honour and a boost for one’s career. Therefore, while the idea that if it seems too good to be true, is a prudent one to hold; there is also a temptation to follow through.

The author replied to the request quizzing the reason for the invite out of the blue. The answer was less than convincing, and a swift email by the author saying “Don’t tell me… You are offering me a keynote with travel and accommodation… Lol!!” called their bluff and ended correspondence.

But digging a little deeper he found there was a webpage dedicated to taking payments to attend the conference. In the digital world, a fool can be easily and quickly separated from his or her money.

Of course, it may have been a real conference at a real venue, and they really wanted him to speak. But discerning this is not easy at first…

Some of the warning signs/What to look out for

The conference email invitation looks very convincing (if not don’t even read it!).

The venue is good location as Nobes (2017) highlighted, “the organizers are more interested in marketing the tourist destination rather than the academic value of the conference”.

The conference covers too many different aspects or topics, as if the advert is designed to catch the eye of many people as possible who are vaguely connected to the discipline.

Mentions on associated predatory journals and ‘important’ organisations in the discipline.

Email and bank accounts that don’t look professional/ official.

Little mention of attendance fees, but after acceptance emails demanding a high conference fee and other charges.

Conference organisers are not academics, or unknown names.

Conference does not peer-review submission/ not provide proper editorial control over presentations

Signs of copying of names of existing academic conferences or scientific organisation and even copying of their webpages

Even more advertising than normal at a scientific conference.

Furthermore, Andy Nobes (2017) offered some helpful advice on quality of the conference websites in the list below. Andy is based at AuthorAID, a global network providing support, mentoring, resources and training for researchers in developing countries.

Who is at risk of falling for predatory conferences?

Academics need to be aware of money-making conferences and meetings without a true commitment to science. But some academics might be more at risk than others. Young researchers, PhD students and fledgling academics, living from contract to contract may feel any conference attendance is a potential career boost. Thus, such an invitation might seem flattering and an opportunity to good to miss. A way to show that he or she is a capable and independent academic.

Final thoughts

Most academics go to conferences for a combination of presenting their work to get critical feedback, making new contacts, sharing ideas and to be inspired. With such broad combination of motivating factors, the exact purpose of conferences is difficult to ascertain because there is no a priori agreed role and value of conferences (Nicolson, 2017a). However, there is evidence that academic conferences function to facilitate commodity transactions, be that knowledge, tools, skills, reputations, or connections, which reflects the neoliberal ethos in the modern academy (Nicolson 2017b). The predatory conference can be viewed in this light, where academia is more and more focused on generating revenue. It is at best scurrilous, and worst, criminal, for organisations to make money using such a confidence trick. Always check which conferences are organised and advertised by recognised scholarly organisations in your own discipline. If uncertain ask a more experienced academic, a senior colleague or mentor.

Things can go wrong in surgery, and dealing with the consequences of complications and errors is part and parcel of a surgeon’s life. Last week a conference was held at BU’s Executive Business Centre which explored the impact that adverse events have on surgeons and examined how these effects can be ameliorated. Eminent presenters from across the UK shared insights from their surgical careers and personal experiences, presented the latest research in the area, and considered how better support and training could be provided for surgeons.

The conference was organised by the Bournemouth Adverse Events Research Team, a joint research venture between psychologists at BU and surgeons at Royal Bournemouth Hospital, who are currently researching the impact of complications and errors which inevitably arise during surgery on surgeons. Professor Siné McDougall, one of the research team, said: “Today is about trying to think about what we can do to support surgeons. When things do go wrong, the focus is rightly on patients and their family. However, surgeons are also dealing with their own feelings, particularly if they have made a mistake which they deeply regret.”

It was clear that the conference had touched on a key issue for surgeons. This was summed up by the keynote speaker, Professor Sir Miles Irving, Emeritus Professor of Surgery at Manchester University, who said “The proceedings were excellent and clearly demonstrated that you have latched on to a problem which has the potential to become even more significant if not addressed.” The Bournemouth Adverse Events Team is looking forward to continuing research in this area which will address this issue.

Congratulations to Jane Fry, Janet Scammell and Sue Barker in the Faculty of Health & Social Science on the publication of their latest paper ‘ Drowning in Muddied Waters or Swimming Downstream?: A Critical Analysis of Literature Reviewing in a Phenomenological Study through an Exploration of the Lifeworld, Reflexivity and Role of the Researcher’.
This innivative paper proceeds from examining the debate regarding the question of whether a systematic literature review should be undertaken within a qualitative research study to focusing specifically on the role of a literature review in a phenomenological study. Along with pointing to the pertinence of orienting to, articulating and delineating the phenomenon within a review of the literature, the paper presents an appropriate approach for this purpose. How a review of the existing literature should locate the focal phenomenon within a given context is illustrated by excerpts from the literature review within a descriptive phenomenological study. This article was recently published in the Indo-Pacific Journal of Phenomenology. Click here for freely available copy online.

Next months sees the publication of our latest article on research ethics in developing countries [1]. Our paper argues that despite a significant increase in health research activity in low-and middle-income countries (LMICs) in recent years, only limited work has been done to address ethical concerns. Most ethics committees in LMICs lack the authority and/or the capacity to monitor research in the field. This is important since not all research, particularly in LMICs region, complies with ethical principles, sometimes this is inadvertently or due to a lack of awareness of their importance in assuring proper research governance. With several examples from Nepal, this paper reflects on the steps required to obtain informed consents and highlights some of the major challenges and barriers to seeking informed consent from research participants. At the end of this paper, we also offer some recommendations around how can we can promote and implement optimal informed consent taking process.

The paper is co-written by six authors, and interestingly five are graduates of the University of Aberdeen. These Aberdeen University graduates are currently affiliated with five different universities. Four of who are based in the UK at: the University of Liverpool, the University of the West of England, the University of Oxford, and in Bournemouth University’s Centre for Midwifery, Maternal & Perinatal Health (CMMPH) and one in the USA: Georgetown University. The sixth co-author, Nirmal Aryal, is currently a PhD student at the University of Otago in Dunedin (New Zealand). Whilst Liverpool-based researcher Dr. Pramod Regmi is heading back for Bournemouth University to become a lecturer in International Health in the Faculty of Health & Social Sciences this autumn.

Representing the research team from Bournemouth University, Sarah Hodge presented cross-disciplinary PhD research at two conferences in Las Vegas (April) and Denver (May).

The first conference Broadcast Education Association (BEA) included a symposium organised and attended by key academics in the area of psychology and gaming and within this Sarah won top paper in the symposium track and 2nd place student paper. The research presented was funded by the University Student Research Assistant (SRA) scheme, which involved collaboration between departments and faculties. The research involved creating a game to measure in-game moral decisions. The research team included Jacqui Taylor and John McAlaney from the Department of Psychology, Davide Melacca and Christos Gatzidis from the Department of Creative Technology, and Eike Anderson from the National Centre for Computer Animation.

At the second conference Computers in Human Interaction (CHI), Sarah had a workshop paper accepted on Ethical Encounters in Human Computer Interaction and this naturally stimulated many interesting questions about ethics in research. Sarah was a student volunteer at the conference. Sarah was a Chair student Volunteer at British HCI 2016 that was held at Bournemouth University last summer and this experience supported being accepted as a Student Volunteer at CHI. From this experience Sarah was assigned the role of Day Captain, which involved supporting and overseeing the other student volunteers with their duties. Sarah found it to be a great experience and highly recommends other students to consider being a student volunteer as a great chance to network and it also helps with funding conferences as the registration fee was waived.

There’s been a buzz on social media recently about Field weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) particularly around the recent leak from the University of Manchester that the FWCI is one of the measures suggested by which to assess academics most at risk of redundancy:

So, these are the proposed criteria I (a historian, remember) wd have to meet to avoid being among the ⁓140 of whom ⁓65 will lose our jobs. pic.twitter.com/voLNnzLsnW

In his recent blog on The Bibliomagician Blog (reposted here with permission) Iain Rowlands a Research Information & Intelligence Specialist at King’s College London and a member of the LIS-Bibliometrics committee questions the stability of the FWCI indicator for sets of fewer than 10,000 documents. Ian invites others to use his methodology to further test his theory…

SciVal’s field-weighted citation impact (FWCI) is an article-level metric that takes the form of a simple ratio: actual citations to a given output divided by the expected rate for outputs of similar age, subject and publication type. FWCI has the dual merits of simplicity and ease of interpretation: a value of 2 indicates that an output has achieved twice the expected impact relative to the world literature. It is a really useful addition to the benchmarking toolkit.

The trouble is that, typically, the distribution of citations to outputs is highly skewed, with most outputs achieving minimal impact at one end and a small number of extreme statistical outliers at the other. Applying the arithmetic mean to data distributed like this, as does FWCI, is not ideal because the outliers can exert a strong leveraging effect, “inflating” the average for the whole set. This effect is likely to be more marked the smaller the sample size.

I explored this effect in a simple experiment. I downloaded SciVal FWCI values for 52,118 King’s College London papers published up until 2014. I then calculated mean FWCI and 95% confidence (or stability) intervals for the whole sample using the bootstrapping[1] feature in SPSS. Then I took progressively smaller random samples (99%, 98%, and so on to 1%, then 0.1%), recalculating mean FWCI and stability intervals each time.

The findings shows how mean FWCI becomes less stable as sample size decreases. Highly cited outliers are relatively uncommon, but their chance inclusion or exclusion makes a big difference, especially as the number of outputs decreases. In this experiment, FWCI values range across four orders of magnitude, from 0.03 to 398.28.

What does this mean for interpreting FWCI, especially when benchmarking? The table below offers some guidance. It shows typical stability intervals around FWCI at different scales. The final column assumes that SciVal spits out a value of 2.20 and shows how that figure should be interpreted in terms of its stability.

It’s pretty clear from this analysis that you need to know when it’s time to stop when you are drilling down in SciVal! Another implication is that there is no sensible justification for quoting FWCI to two let alone three decimal places of precision. I’ve kept the second decimal place above simply for purposes of demonstration.

I am well aware that the guidance above is based on data from just one institution, and may not travel well. If you would like to replicate this experiment using your own data, I’m happy to share my SPSS Syntax file. It automates the whole thing, so you just have to load and go off on a short holiday! Just drop me an email.

Ian Rowlands is a Research Information & Intelligence Specialist at King’s College London and a member of the LIS-Bibliometrics committee.

The guide has been updated from 1 April 2017. The updates include the need to notify the relevant research council of an allegation of research misconduct at the stage that it is decided to undertake an informal inquiry; not, as previously, at the (later) stage of deciding to undertake a formal investigation. Please see the link above for the full changes.

The research and knowledge exchange (RKE) development framework offers a range of opportunities for academics at all career stages to develop their skills, knowledge and capabilities in relation to research and knowledge exchange. The pre-award pathway offers all of the starting information required by academics and researchers at BU to undertake research bidding.

All research being conducted at BU falls under the Ethics and Governance policies at BU. This session will offer Academics and Researchers an understanding of the Ethics procedures and Research Governance policies at BU.

This session will explore how best to adapt research in response to the changing external environment. The workshop will provide information on the best routes to funding based upon career stages and also introduce how RKEO can help.

This session will introduce researchers to Full Economic Costs (fEC), transparant approaches to costing (TRAC) and the BU Financial Regulations. Guidance will be offered on how to cost projects in a way that funders will find acceptable. Training will be provided on producing the ‘Justificaton of Resources’ document required by many funders.

This course is aimed at those who are, or wish to be, a designated Faculty and UET Activity Quality/Peer reviewers. This session will provide an introduction/refresher of academic review policies at BU.

Last week was a good week for FHSS from a publishing perspective. On the last day of February Sociological Research Online published a book review with Dr. Pramod Regmi as first author, which we highlighted in an earlier BU Research Blog (see more here!) [1]. On the same the same day we received news from the Journal of Travel Medicine (published by Oxford University press) that our latest article on research in Nepal was accepted for publication. Our paper ‘Identifying the gaps in Nepalese migrant workers’ health and well-being: A review of the literature’ addresses the health and well-being of migrant health workers and ‘brings’ this to travel medicine specialists [2].

On Thursday our article ‘Vital signs and other observations used to detect deterioration in pregnant women: an analysis of vital sign charts in consultant-led maternity units’ was accepted by the International Journal of Obstetric Anesthesia published by Elsevier [3].On Friday The Lancet published correspondence from FHSS Post-Doc. Researcher Dr. Pramod Regmi and FHSS Ph.D. student Folashade Alloh, and BU Visiting Faculty Prof. Padam Simkhada under the title: ‘Mental health in BME groups with diabetes: an overlooked issue?’[4]. To round off the week on Friday afternoon the editorial office of Kontakt (published by Elsevier) emailed that the editorial ‘The medical and social model of childbirth’ had been accepted for publication [5].

This week saw the publication of the latest issue of the internet-based journal Sociological Research Online. In this issue Dr. Pramod Regmi and Prof. Edwin van Teijlingen published a book review of Balanced Ethics Review: A Guide for Institutional Review Board Members written by the American academic Simon Whitney. [1] In doing so they continue the tradition of FHSS scholars contributing to the research ethics debate. For example, Regmi and colleagues recently had a paper accepted on their insights into research in low-income countries in the journal Developing World Bioethics.[2] Whilst a 2012 FHSS-led paper stressed that researchers conducting research in low-income countries need to apply for research ethics approval to the relevant local authority, if national legislation requires one to do so.[3]

Looking better a little further back, Professor Emerita Immy Holloway wrote about the researcher who may have (potentially) conflicting roles namely those of researcher and health care professional.[4] Whilst a combination of midwifery researchers in the Centre for Midwifery, Maternal & Perinatal Health (CMMPH) highlighted the problems faced by practitioners doing research in their field of practice with perhaps the risk of blurring professional and research ethics, as balancing competing ethical concerns between protecting research participants and over-managing the ethical process can be problematic.[5-6] The latter issue of management and regulation of research ethics has recognised as getting more and more cumbersome and bureaucratic.[7-8]

Two further publications by Prof. Ashencaen Crabtree have added to the pool of FHSS publication on research ethics.[9-10] The first one, a book, addressed the problematic issue of gate-keepers in research together with the ethics of critical observation of abuse (potential or actual), as well as the ethics of advocating on behalf of research participants.[9] The second paper covered issues around working with research participants who are regarded as ‘vulnerable’ in a study into the context of care and patient/service user experiences.[10]

Whilst Prof. Parker has highlighted the benefits and dangers of using email and the Internet for social and health research.[11] An even newer research approach is the use of discussion boards as sources of data, which brings its own ethical dilemmas.[12]

In 2010-11 Prof. Parker and colleagues explored in two separate papers the contested meanings and difficulties associated with informed consent, highlighting challenges raised by an almost unquestioned acceptance of biomedical research ethics in social research and questioning whether potential ‘harm’ is different in this context.[13-14]

Prof. Hundley and colleagues discussed the ethical challenges involved in conducting a cluster randomised controlled trial, where getting informed consent can be complication.[15] Whilst it is worth reminding researchers that in issues of informed consent during pregnancy and childbirth one has to consider the potential for harm to two participants.[16]

Higher Education and Research Bill – the Bill continues its committee stage in the Lords, with long and lively debates. Only government amendments have been approved so far, apart from last week’s amendment to clause 1. The list of amendments has continued to grow in the meantime, there is a genuine risk that they may not get through it all and run out of time. The next sessions are 23rd, 25th and 30th January. Some interesting new proposed amendments over the last week:

ensuring name and gender blind assessment on application and on marking for all student assessments at both undergraduate and postgraduate levels – Lord Desai

power for the Office for Students (OfS) to initiate investigations (including a student perspective) into changes to the admissions system and the system of degree classification – Lord Lucas

reserving funding for Research England whenever new grants are awarded to UKRI – Lord Liddle

Research Professional cover the Minister’s uncompromising stance towards amendments. They suggest the Government is listening and may yet propose amendments to address some of the issues raised by the Lords, but points out that there is a risk of further symbolic resistance as more Lords ‘dig their heels in’.

Immigration

in response to comments in the HERB debates in the Lords, when concerns were raised about using the TEF to limit student visas, Lord Younger informed the House of Lords during the HE bill committee stage that the government has “no plans to cap the number of genuine students who can come to the UK to study, nor to limit an institution’s ability to recruit genuine international students based on its teaching excellence framework rating or any other basis. This applies to all institutions, not just to members of the Russell group.”

The Home Affairs Committee invited written submissions for an immigration inquiry in December with a deadline of 20 January, however, it has been confirmed submission will be accepted after the deadline. BU is not proposing to respond to this as we already provided evidence on staff and student mobility after Brexit to the Education Committee, which is continuing its hearings. The next one is on 25th January at UCL.

Research integrity select committee – A Commons Science and Technology Committee has launched an inquiry into research integrity. The inquiry is accompanied by the recently published POSTnote: Integrity in Research which discusses the questionable practices and considers whether a regulatory body for UK research would be beneficial. The original committee investigation into peer review from 2010/11 is here which led UUK to set up concordat to support research integrity. A call for written evidence to the Committee has been published. We will be working with RKEO to consider whether BU should submit evidence, please contact policy@bournemouth.ac.uk if you would like to be involved. Issues raised in include:

The extent of the research integrity problem;

Causes and drivers of recent trends;

The effectiveness of controls/regulation (formal and informal), and what further measures if any are needed;

What matters should be for the research/academic community to deal with, and which for Government.

Contract cheating – WonkHE reported on the difficulties in preventing cheating with the rise in companies offering one-off essays and dissertations. The BBC (May 2016) ran an article about a commercial essay writer motivated by revenge for believed racial discrimination and noted five methods universities can undertake to tackle plagiarism. Lord Storey is leading the campaign for a proposed amendment within the HE and Research Bill which aims to make providing or advertising cheating services an offence, focussing on ‘unfair disadvantage’. The Australian Government currently have a national project reporting in 2018 that aims to stamp out ‘contract cheating’. Finally a THE article explains ta new law may only have a deterrent effect; countries with contract cheating laws do not in practice have many successful prosecutions.

Digital skills crisis – The Government have published their response to the Science and Technology Select Committee’s special report on the digital skills crisis within industry and teaching capacity within schools – it lists a number of areas that need focus: cyber-security, big data, the Internet of Things, mobile technology and e-commerce. There is a focus on degree apprenticeships, immigration and the Shadbolt and Wakeham Reviews of relevant degree provision.

Fees: the Government published a Statutory Instrument that allows institutions to increase tuition fees by inflation, this came into effect on 6 January 2017. This enables the first year of the TEF related fee increases – all institutions which have been designated as meeting expectations in year 1 of the TEF can now increase fees by inflation in September 2017. Some institutions have announced their intention to apply this to all students – including existing students – but BU will only change fees for new students. You can read more about the process and background to this on the intranet. The change went through as a formality – there is already legislation in place – but there are still amendments to be debated in the Higher Education and Research Bill seeking to break this link.

PM’s Brexit speech: If you missed this, the main points of the PM’s speech this week are below. Universities and research received a high number of positive mentions, which is encouraging:

Leaving the single market and the customs union

Not using any other existing model

But would like a deal on customs tariffs and access to the single market

MPs and peers will get a vote on final deal

Not making huge contributions to the EU but may pay something to have access to the single market

EU citizens welcome here but no guarantee – needs to be reciprocal

Warm words about universities – hope for deal on participation in science and research

New DLHE – Dan Cook writes for WonkHE on the new DLHE describing a centralised model aiming to achieve high response rates, allow for continuation of post-graduation support to alumni from HEIs, and exploring a dashboard so institutions have near-real time interaction with their data.

Widening Participation and Outreach–

HEFCE have published a resource pool covering a wide range of outreach initiatives all of which were funded by the National Networks for Collaborative Outreach.

Do you supervise PhD Students, if so, please note that the process for the review and approval for low risk PGR ethics checklists has changed. Please visit the Research Ethics Website (see Postgraduate Research) for further details.

Congratulations to Dr. Pramod Regmi as the lead author of the paper ‘Informed consent in health research: challenges and barriers in low-and middle-income countries with specific reference to Nepal‘ [1]. Informed consent is a process whereby potential participants are genuinely informed about their role, risk and rights before they are enrolled in the study. Thus, ethics committees in most countries require ‘informed consent form’ as part of an ethics application which is reviewed before granting research ethics approval. Despite a significant increase in health research activity in low-and middle-income countries (LMICs) in recent years, only limited work has been done to address ethical concerns.

Most ethics committees in LMICs lack the authority and/or the capacity to monitor research in the field. This is important since not all research, particularly in LMICs region, complies with ethical principles, sometimes this is inadvertently or due to a lack of awareness of their importance in assuring proper research governance. With several examples from Nepal, this paper reflects on the steps required to obtain informed consents and highlights some of the major challenges and barriers to seeking informed consent from research participants. The authors offer some recommendations around how can we can promote and implement optimal informed consent taking process.

The paper will appear later this year in the international journal Developing World Bioethics (publisher: Wiley). Finally, just out of interest five out of six of the authors are graduates of the University of Aberdeen!

At a television interview this morning in Kathmandu I was asked how many papers I had published on health and health-related issues in Nepal. I told the interviewer from BTV Business that it was around 90 to a hundred. Coming back to Green Tara Nepal office I decide to update the list of papers on Nepal to make sure I had not lied too much on TV.

Adding up the papers, editorials and, to a lesser extent, book chapters I was pleasantly surprised that there were 25 on maternity care & midwifery, 18 on sexual & reproductive health, nine on infectious diseases, five on non-communicable diseases, six on nutrition & child health, three on mental health, two on migration and a further mixture of 38 on topics such as health systems, research methods, or health & education capacity building. If I have not double counted any of the papers that a grand total of 106. Most are co-authored with BU Visiting Faculty Prof.Padam Simkhada (from Liverpool John Moores University), many with PhD students conducting projects in Nepal and, more recently with BU post-doctoral fellow Dr. Pramod Regmi.

Ireland, J., van Teijlingen, E., Kemp, J. (2015) Twinning in Nepal: the Royal College of Midwives UK and the Midwifery Society of Nepal working in partnership, Journal of Asian Midwives 2 (1): 26-33. http://ecommons.aku.edu/jam/vol2/iss1/5/

An exploration into the dynamics of being an international student and the complexities surrounding their placement and employability prospects

Abstract

The experience of students gaining work placement has become an integral part of the United Kingdom (UK) Higher Education (HE) system in an attempt to help prepare students for the world of work. Whilst much has been written about this subject, the majority of the research centres on the UK domicile learner. Considering the importance of the HE internationalisation agenda, the drive to increase the recruitment numbers of international students (IS) and the fact that the need to gain work experience extends to include IS, there is little published literature which explores the work placement experiences from an international student perspective. This presentation reports on an instrumental case study which explored the experiences of IS with a view to understanding the challenges they face identifying, securing and successfully completing a work placement. Findings suggest substantial challenges exist and a framework is proposed to help the university improve the international students’ placement experience and employability prospects.

Marcellus is Research Fellow in the Centre for Excellence in Learning at Bournemouth University. His involvement in the Centre touches on some of the key areas in the discipline of Education such as University Community Engagement, Graduate Employability and Education for Sustainable Development.

If you have any queries about Social Science Seminar Series, please get in touch with Dr Mastoureh Fathi (mfathi@bournemouth.ac.uk).

HRA Approval is the new process for the NHS in England that simplifies the approvals process for research, making it easier for research studies to be set up. It replaces the need for local checks of legal compliance and related matters by each participating organisation in England. This allows participating organisations to focus their resources on assessing, arranging and confirming their capacity and capability to deliver the study.

Laura Purandare, Research Monitor RBCH, has kindly agreed to run a seminar on 4th May at 2pm in BG14 to explain the changes.

The session will cover:

What HRA approval is

The implementation of changes

The difference it proposes to make to health research in England

What it means for our researchers

Key resources

The session will last approximately an hour, and Laura will be available for questions following the session. We hope to see you there.